Well, the truth is that the Congress can take away whatever rights it wants with a majority vote. It doesn't even have to be Constitutional. They are completely prohibited from passing any laws regulating speech, but they certainly pass some, and courts add other restrictions. So we are stuck in some areas relying on courts and lawyers to tell us what we can say, even though the First Amendment makes clear this should not be.

Maybe it'll get better some day.

Fortunately it seems that in this instance there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of danger of the long inconsistent arm of the law stepping in.

By the way, this is neither here nor there, but have you ever noticed how the First Amendment talks about the exercise of the press? Free speech rights are based in property rights: you have the right to use your own printing press (or pen, or website) to say what you want, but you don't get the right to go use somebody else's press (or pen, or website) against their will just because you have "free speech" rights. For example, you can't go shout "fire" in a crowded theater because you don't own the theater and the theater owner doesn't permit you to disrupt his customers in that way. {If people wanted to found a theater where customers sign up to be entertained by having their movies interrupted by somebody shouting "fire" and starting a stampede, I guess an owner would have the right to set that up if he wanted...}

Thought I'd mention that because it's a common misconception about the right to free speech.

It's great to live in this time, though, where speech is incredibly cheap and almost completely unrestricted and anybody who has something to say can get it out to whatever willing audience exists for their message.

Of course that makes no sense since if he owns his own sexual acts, she owns HERS by the same standard.

Well, shame on us if we allow that to happen! I realize many power mongers and facists TRY to stifle free speech but that has not been successful as of yet fortunately.

Exactly. And I think this is confusing to some. For example, I have seen forums moderate offensive posts and the moderated party complained his "free speech rights" were being violated.

In the matter of facebook, they would be perfectly within their rights to ban such exposures.

Yes, you'd have to save them as drafts in your email or files on the thumb drive and then post them when you can log in.


Yes, me too. If I ever get a tool made for posting to MB when MB is not available, I will share it with you.


You can also set it to email you posts from certain posters. I get everything Prisca posts, immediately, which is always a nice heads up.


You'd be surprised how often you can pull a thread back by replying to an older post.

Plus with an entire day to think you can revise what you are going to say and make it even better.

She is allowed to discuss hers. She cannot name him without possibly running afoul of the Publication tort.

"They" being facebook owners or the person/people who's wall you posted on? This is an interesting legal question which no doubt will find it's way to court whether it has to do with adultery or not.

Here's my final take on this:

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. That possibility would not deter me from protecting my family. If I need to expose an affair, gang, I'm going to do it. I think we've exhaustively seen that exposure protects our family. The importance of protecting my family is worth the narrow risk that some pissed off OW is litigious.

And I won't be shy about filing a few countersuits if I need to.

I can't see why an OP would sue anyway...oh, please, give me money! I took that man/woman's husband/wife and spit in the face of his/her marriage, and they told everybody about it!

My true lurvvvv deserves to be kept secret!


/sarcasm

Oh, I totally agree with you maritalbliss. I was just trying to explore the actual possible legal ramifications of exposure since that was what this thread was about. It is truly an extremely low risk - like getting hit by lightning.

In (my) reality, it has been the BS's who have initiated non-divorce-related legal action against the WS's. I took my WXH to small claims court to get my income tax refund back which was mistakenly deposited in his account. The OWH in my sitch had OW charged with assault when she ran him over with her truck. I personally know a few other BS's who had to take legal action of some sort against their WS above and beyond any divorce procedings. I can't think of any that happened the other way around. WS's crow a lot but they really just want to crawl under a rock.

ahhh, gotcha! But in the case of adultery, that cannot be done. One can't very well say they have been a victim of adultery and not specify her own husband. And since an OP committed a very public wrongdoing against the BS, she has a right to say who did it. It is more than owning a sexual act, it is a wrongful act committed against a spouse. If someone assaults me, they don't have a right to privacy just because they assaulted me in private for example. I have a right to say WHO committed that act against me.

Same here! I would RELISH having some skankho sue me after she climbed into the pig pen with my husband. Discovery would be so much fun!

"They" being facebook. And as was previously discussed, we don't post it to a wall, because you actually reach fewer targets that way.

That's some powerful stuff he must be on ...

Oh and one last thing with respect to waywards. My WXH, who practically exposed himself, refused to allow "adultery" appear on the divorce papers. The laws here allow you to divorce immediately for reasons of abuse or adultery, otherwise you have to wait until you have been legally separated one year. He wanted a divorce right away and asked me to sign the papers. I told him I would sign the papers provided we checked off "adultery" and name OW (it actually asks for that!). He didn't get his insta-divorce.

They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. (Actually, I think they expect you to do that for them!)

It's been successful to some degree, but thankfully I have yet to see evidence that it has been successful in the realm of exposing adultery.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between different types or areas of speech, but unfortunately some courts sometimes do. Fortunately it doesn't seem to affect us for this cause.

Facebook would be the owners, so they would be the ones with the right to set the rules. They might set the rule that members can set standards for their own pages and Facebook will enforce it. (Or any other rule, of course.)

Of course, this is what the MORAL rights would be. I can't speculate on what some goofball court might decide.

The guy was involved in Washington politics. 'Nuf said?

A previous post stated a BS can sue OP based on "tortious interference with contract..."Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship." If an ow/om's intent is to induce the mm/mw to breach the marriage contract by sleeping with them on the side, well..." and another post listed several other possibilitiies....alienation of affection, etc...

Under what circumstances could a BS sue OP? Do you have to be in divorce proceedings to justify suing (i.e. if BS/WS are struggling to keep marriage together can you still sue OP or do you have to wait until both parties give up and begin proceedings to end M)? What benefits are there for BS to sue OP if there is proof of the A?

Joan, the laws vary state to state so that is where I would start. I don't think one has to be in a divorce action to launch such suits - I have yet to see that stipulation. The benefits of suing the OP would be to teach her a lesson and make him/her pay legally. Dr Harley is a firm believer that there should be civil and criminal penalties against adultery. If more of these legal avenues were pursued, people might think twice. If you want to read up on the legal history of adultery in the US check out Harley's book Defending Traditional Marriage. It has some really good research in it.